Challenge to James Patrick Holding

Mr. Holding seems to specialize in red herrings.

For the last few months, he has been posting videos to his YouTube account wherein he refutes this or that hideously inconclusive skeptical objection to some aspect of the resurrection of Jesus.

Unfortunately, he has chosen to make Christianity look good by batting down the more stupid and uninformed skeptical objections, that any fool with access to Google could tell are false or likely false.

Holding apparently needs a refresher course in common sense:  The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus depends on the extent to which the testimony to that effect in the NT passes standard tests of credibility.  Telling your yammering children that the ancient Jews didn't believe in resurrected ghosts, might get rid of a couple of skeptics, but then again, me telling my own readers how stupid it is to play with live rattlesnakes might get rid of a few churches, but hardly does anything to hurt Christianity proper.

Holding needs to do videos on issues that actually matter, such as:

• Whether unbelievers can be reasonable to refuse to use bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic.  Bible inerrancy is hotly debated by inerrantists themselves, and is denied by most Christian scholars.  It has nowhere near the universal acclaim that other hermeneutics have, such as "grammar", "immediate context", "genre", etc, therefore, there is no justification to view an otherwise contextually and grammatically justified interpretation of a bible verse as wrong, merely because it would conflict with something the bible or the human author himself said elsewhere.  So something more than "that would make the bible contradict itself!" needs to be whimpered before an otherwise contextually and grammatically justified charge of contradiction in the resurrection accounts need be rejected.
• Why god doesn't use his disposition-changing magically coercive telepathic ability to make even the most pagan unbelievers change their minds and believe whatever he wants them to believe (Ezra 1:1, Daniel 4:33), to help today's unbelievers see the light, since God's use of such methods leaves him no excuse to bitch about how closed-minded unbelievers are.  Nothing is preventing God from using such ability except his own desire that unbelievers remain obstinate.
• Why most bible scholars are wrong to claim modern canonical Greek Matthew is anonymous.
• What we should infer from the fact that every church father who wanted to tell the reader what language Matthew wrote in, says it was Hebrew, while none of them declare that Matthew composed or translated in Greek, and why the obvious inference "Matthew likely didn't author or translate any Greek language gospel" should be viewed highly improbable despite its obvious merit.
• Whether the bible provides enough information about the gospel authors themselves, aside from the question-begging assumption of their alleged gospels, so that we can reach reasonable confidence in forming a conclusion about their levels of general credibility
• Why unbelievers should bother with the question of Matthew's authorship, when not even staunchly conservative apologists for the eyewitness authorship of the gospels, such as Dr. Richard Bauckham, are willing to say Matthew wrote it.
• Whether, assuming Matthew saw the risen Christ and heard more teaching about the kingdom of God for a 40 day period (Acts 1:3), he would be likely to knowingly exclude such from his gospel (Matthew 28).
• Why we should believe Mark wrote a resurrection appearance narrative that was later lost, when common sense says his requesting church would have recognized the fragile preciousness of the single autograph, and would likely have guarded against possible loss by making copies at the very earliest period before the repeated use of the original scroll or codex would cause the resurrection appearance narrative at the end to be lost.
   
• Why we should believe Mark wrote a resurrection appearance narrative that was later lost, when common sense says the resurrection appearance story, being the most joyful part of the Christian story, would be the part most likely to be enthusiastically memorized by Mark's requesting church, so that losses through corruption of the text itself could be overcome by simply writing a new copy from memory.
• Whether the Mary mother of Jesus in Mark 3:21 who concludes her son is insane and tries to put a stop to his public ministry (i.e., "take custody"), is the same Mary the mother of Jesus who somewhere between 30 a.d. and 65 a.d., allegedly told Matthew and Luke her prior experiences of God and angels back when she was pregnant with Jesus, and how these confirmed in various ways to her full satisfaction that Jesus was truly divine.  Since Mary thus wasn't forgetful, she was either apostate or lying.  Or Mark speaks of Mary in 3:21 as having thoughts so contrary to the nativity stories because Mark himself knew nothing about nativity stories, despite his source, Peter, being within Jesus' "inner circle", being thus especially likely to have more access to Mary and her testimony than most of the other apostles.
• What exactly is wrong with concluding that a person as interested in the divinity of Jesus as Mark, would not likely "choose to exclude" nativity stories that strongly support his theological agenda, and therefore, Mark excludes the nativity stories probably because he doesn't know about them or thinks them false.
• If Holding doesn't like the "Jesus couldn't do real miracles" conclusion we skeptics draw from Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, can Holding show that his own explanation for the unbelief of Jesus' immediate family is more likely true?  What?  Were Jesus' mother and brothers just brick-stupid recluses?  or maybe Holding never discovered, until about two seconds ago, that the vast majority of Christian translations of Mark 3:21 are wrong?
• Why unbelievers should bother with John's gospel, when conservative scholars like Licona and Craig Evans admit John was not above putting words in Jesus' mouth which Jesus never spoke, and was not above allowing his theological agenda to relax his concern for historical accuracy.
• Why apostle Paul should have shit to do with the discussion of resurrection eyewitnesses, when not even the most explicit NT accounts of Paul's interaction with the risen Christ, justify classifying Paul as an 'eyewitness'.
•  Paul claimed that he took a trip to heaven, and that 14 years later, he still couldn't tell whether that trip was physical or spiritual (2nd Cor. 12:1-4).  If Holding were being prosecuted for a crime on the basis of the testimony of a witness whose history included such similarly wildl esoteric claims, he would surely scream his head off that the witness doesn't have enough credibility to sustain the charge.  Why then does Holding expect unbelievers to think such indecisive mystics like Paul are the least bit credible?  How can we know when a person's shockingly bizarre claims of taking nearly indescribable trips to heaven does or doesn't justify viewing their credibility as fully impeached?
• Why unbelievers should be impressed with the "eyewitness" testimony to the resurrection, when the only such testimony that comes down to us today in first-hand form, are, at best, Matthew, John and Paul, that is, forgetting about the fatal problems of gospel authorship and the equally fatal problem of whether the resurrection stories of Matthew and John actually come from these individual men.
• How unbelievers can be expected to give a shit about any tyrant, real or unreal, who causes men to rape women and beat children to death (Isaiah 13).  Don't forget that God also claims he will take just as much "delight" to inflict such horrors on people, as he delights to bless them (Deuteronomy 28:63).
• Why unbelievers should think the bible god "loves" them, when in fact god's refusal to do his best to convince them the gospel is true, necessarily implies a rather shockingly limited "love" at best, and more likely implies a genuine hatred, since any parent who solely by choice did less than their best to rescue a drowning child is not exhibiting "limited" love, but "no" love.

I thus suspect that the reason Holding fucks around with the more stupid trifling skeptical objections is for the same reason any skeptic would try to refute Christianity by exposing the errors of snake-handling and the prosperity gospel.  In both cases, you can make your own beliefs look better if you choose only the most dumbshit idiots as representative of the opposition.


Go ahead, Holding, remind your readers that yes, you already had all these relevant video-topics in mind, you just didn't get around to getting serious until an atheist complained that you are spending too much time in the sandbox.  Perhaps God is telling you to stop using other people's hard earned cash merely to give you another reason to sit on your fat ass.

The Slander-Psychology Challenge to James Patrick Holding

It is my contention that James Patrick Holding, infamous for highly charged inflammatory insults against anybody who disagrees with him, has never bothered to consider the psychological forces put in play in his follower's minds as they eagerly watch him lambaste and verbally abuse atheists and other bible critics.

It is my contention that these psychological forces motivate himself and his followers to no less degree than they do in any other context (i.e., atheist insulting a Christian in an atheist forum, comedian insulting somebody during non-religious stand-up routine, etc).

In other words, it is my contention that the reasons Holding's small band of cash donors find him so entertaining and edifying for insulting critics, is for reasons no less purely naturalistic than when atheists find their group leader so edifying and entertaining when he or she insults critics of atheism.

Which, if true, leads necessarily to the conclusion that there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the "edification" they feel when watching him in action, has any more "Holy Spirit" to it, than the same feelings experienced by atheists who similarly laugh and bond while watching their group leader verbally slash away at critics of atheism.

So that if I am right, that one trait that Holding has worked so hard to hone and perfect, is a trait that can be fully explained in purely naturalistic terms.  Adding "But Jesus insulted the Pharisees too!" doesn't import the least bit of spirituality back into this purely naturalistic phenomena.

With that said, I challenge Holding to write an article listing what mental health professionals say in academic and popular sources, about the purely naturalistic motives people have to either insult others, or to watch their leader insult others.  That is, for what reasons are certain people attracted to that style of communication that constantly belittles one's critics?

When he lists those motives, he should then provide argument for why he believes the theory "this is God in me, causing me to be bold in the Spirit" explains better these traits when found in Christians, than does any non-Christian theory.

I'll start him off so that he doesn't conveniently misunderstand his assigned homework:

First, common sense says Mr. Holding is not god.  Therefore, it is far from certain that when Holding tell the world why he is motivated to belittle his critics, he is telling the truth.  WE have to decide whether his self-serving explanation is true, or if his reasons for insulting his critics are more sinful than this.

Second, common sense says a person can be motivated by anger to insult another.  Holding would be wise to avoid saying yes, he sometimes insults in anger.  He is totally apathetic toward the divine inspiration of the bible, and with such a powerful non-Christian trait about him, it could be argued that the reason he gets angry at critics of Christianity is for no no more significant reason than one professional historian would start talking shit toward another professional historian as they disagree on what happened in the remote past.  The way anger manifests itself when people debate matters that have no definitive resolution anyway, like economics, legal policy, war, constitutional rights, etc, etc.  While anger could possibly ultimately be from the Holy Spirit, Holding will never show evidence that the divine explanation is any better than the naturalistic one.

Third, common sense says a person can be motivated by a selfish desire to dominate others, to insult somebody.  We see that everyday when somebody says "shut the fuck up you fucking fool", and the followers laugh.  So while desire to dominate others could possibly be from the Holy Spirit, Holding will never show evidence that the divine explanation is any better than the naturalistic one.

Fourth, "An insult can thus be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the social status of the recipient and raise the relative status of the insulter." And to this Holding would readily agree, and this is where his case starts to fall apart: Why do you wish to reduce the social status of the insult-recipient, Holding?  Are you afraid that your having allegedly "won" some argument on the merits won't be quite enough to persuade your highly intelligent admirers that your defense really did succeed?  If you trust that these smart people can recognize when you've really won or lost some debate with a critic, then what further benefit are you trying to confer on them by using insult to reduce the social status of said critic? 

Fifth, we cannot discount the possibility that the desire to insult could also chiefly arise from sheer immaturity.  Kids do nothing else better than nag and poke fun at each other, and given that most kids do this without regard to religion, there's a solid argument here that some type of bonding is achieved in the group if they watch with enthusiasm as their leader excoriates somebody who criticized the group or their beliefs, or who otherwise doesn't fit in.  Unfortunately for Holding, he cannot persuasively argue that this theory of insult-motive is unlikely for either himself or his admiring followers.  Insults do indeed usually achieve the benefit of having the group bond just a bit more against the insulted person, and since this happens naturalistically, it will likely aways be a more probable explanation than "I am bold because of the Holy Spirit".

Sixth, we cannot deny that most mature civilized adults counsel us to resolve our differences with each other without shouting matches and insults.  This is a pattern across various demographics of adults in the modern civilized world, both Christian and non-Christians, so we have to take seriously the possibility that, at least for purposes of trying to resolve disagreements about "truth", that part of humanity who are most likely to get it right (the mature), counsel against vitriolic barbs most likely because this type of communication proves to more stifle, than promote,  the prospect of resolving disagreement.  If that is the case, we have to seriously consider that those people who characteristically insult and demean their critics, are either doing this for purely entertainment purposes, or really are more interested in strifling truth, or a combination of both, but the point is that vitriolic insulting certainly does nothing to help one win an argument on the merits.  So the person doing this type of insulting is therefore seeking little more than for his followers to applaud him.

Seventh, some studies indicate that we insult other according to our culture:

Germans, Americans and Italians were especially drawn to anal terms of abuse, such as variations on “asshole”, whereas Spaniards preferred to query the offender’s intelligence. British and Dutch participants leaned towards genital terminology, and Norwegians specialised in satanic expressions. Animal terms and sexual inadequacies and abnormalities were also common.

Since Holding could not make clearer his preference for homosexual and anal references, he must face the daunting prospect that the reason he personally prefers such language has absolutely nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with him being exactly like millions of other Americans, only to a more extreme degree since most heterosexual men don't use homoerotic language nearly as repetitiously as Holding.

That should be enough to get Holding to start working on his assigned homework, the way he "assigned homework" to G.A. Wells and others.

If Holding and his ilk seriously wish to be "godly", how much effort have they put into making sure their sinful lust to insult others is suppressed, so that when they insult others, this is more than likely the Holy Spirit speaking through them?

Or did I forget that Holding and his followers view Christianity is nothing more than an intellectual game?

James Patrick Holding: indifferent to the bible's divine authorship, but pathologically obsessed with defending bible inerancy anyway. WTF?

I accuse Holding of harboring such an apathetic attitude toward the bible that it places him outside the pale of NT Christianity.  The "teachers" in the NT did not have justification to be indifferent toward the divine inspiration of the scriptures. 

Holding affiliates himself at least partially with the Southern Baptist Convention ('SBC'), as he claims to have received an apologetics instructor certification from SBC’s North American Missions Board (‘NAMB’) Convention.  Link.  Link.

The SBC asserts that the scriptures are the trustworthy word of God:

The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

 
Holding not only doesn't "care" whether the bible is the inspired word of God, he specified, when asked to explain, that he wasn't being sarcastic, but genuine, in the 20 or so times he's said this in the past.

-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.
-----Holding: I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind? 

For obvious reasons, Holding's friend who owns the website where Holding made this admission, deleted that thread, but it is still available through wayback. See the link.

 Sure, SBC allows members to differ on eschatology, but has SBC gone so liberal that you can now be a member without caring whether the bible is the word of God?

So Holding’s apathetic attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible makes it just a bit deceptive for him to claim any degree of affinity with the SBC.  Indeed, Holding appears to have a mental illness, because for the last 20 years, he has been the most obnoxious asshole defender of bible inerrancy on the internet…and then we find out that he doesn’t “care” whether the bible is the word of God…?  

 Ok, then what?  Is he just a fake Christian who gets involved in Christianity for no other reason than the fact that membership gives him a way to vent his dysfunctional obsessive need to dominate everything he gets involved in (similar to other fake Christians who involve themselves in it solely to make money)?  What would you think of a Roman Catholic who “didn’t care” whether Catholicism was the right version of Christianity? 

You’d probably conclude such a person's faith in Catholicism wasn't exactly sincere, would you not?

Isn’t is true that when you seriously “don’t care” about something, the one thing you don’t do is obsessively defend it as absolute truth?  Is there any area of your life where for 20 years you have obsessively engaged in some act or defended some theory, while the whole time not “caring” about it?

Holding sometimes writes for the Christian Research Journal, and in a 2011 issue, apologist James R. White concluded that yes, it does matter whether the bible is in fact the word of God.   Dr. White has publicly accused Holding of being a "nasty apologist", and refuses for that reason to communicate with him:

The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner.

Therefore, Holding’s apathetic attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible would seem to justify the assumption that in actual life and belief, he is not a Christian, Christianity is merely something he “does” because it provides endless opportunities to vent his pathological need to belittle other people, no other reason. 

In other words, Holding is plagued with the same "your-actions-don't-square-with-your-alleged-faith" problem that we saw in the likes of Benny Hinn, Ted Haggart and others.  In all cases, they were loudmouths who boisterously advocated for Christianity, and put on such a good dramtic show that their followers were deceptively prevented from detecting that these men were nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing.

For those who staunchly defend Holding’s integrity, let me know when you find a bible verse that will support the notion of a person who can legitimately hold the office of Christian “teacher” while not caring whether the bible is the inspired word of God or not. 

Rebuttal to James Patrick Holding's "Tactitus-Test"

Holding has posted a video to update his former Shattering the Christ-Myth book entry on the issue of Tacitus' infamous reference to Christ.

Here are the problems I have with his update:

First, he admits, without giving any sign in the video that he is being sarcastic, that one of the tests he uses to decide whether an atheist's writings are worthy to read, is how they deal with the Tacitus passage.

His exact words are:

"One of my chief gauges for whether an atheist is worth any attention,
is their treatment of the reference to Jesus in Tacitus' Annals"(video at 0:19 ff)

 The tag for the video reads:

Published on Jul 7, 2017  

A suggestion for dispensing with fundy atheist books

 
Holding's criterion here is absurd:  a) scholars sometimes have much good to say even if they fumble on what you think is a basic truth.  You don't ask whether they deserve attention, you ask what their specific argument is and how they backed it up; b) under Holding's logic, an atheist would be justified to say Holding is not worth attention, because Holding so egregiously defies ALL biblical scholars who agree with the plain NT prohibitions against  filthy communication, jesting and slander:

 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Eph. 5:3-4 NAU)

 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." (Mk. 7:21-23 NAU)

 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Eph. 4:31 NAU)

8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. (Col. 3:8 NAU)

I document Holding's guilt in disobeying these things elsewhere on this blog.

I also explain there that since Holding talks filthy even to other Christians, he cannot escape this criticism by saying those bible verses are limited to in-house Christian discussions.

The point is that if Holding is going to assert that an atheist's failure to get basic shit like Tacitus right, rationally justifies the Christian to give the atheist no "attention", then he has to agree that atheists are justified under the same logic to be equally dismissive toward professing bible-believing Christians who get basic Christian morality wrong...which would mean his logic justifies atheists in refusing to consider anything Holding has to say.

Holding may quibble that the two situations are not the same, but if so, there's more:  Under Holding's logic, the atheist would be justified to give no attention to Christians who do worse than get basic Christian morality wrong, but who are intentionally deceptive and obstinately refuse correction for years after it has become obvious that they were in the wrong.

Has Holding ever been intentionally deceptive and obstinately refused to correct himself after it became obvious that he was in the wrong?  

Yes.  Ever since 1998, Holding has insisted in numerous discussions and articles that the bible scholarship of the Context Group is accurate and cutting-edge, and supports his belief that modern-day Christians have biblical justification to talk in mean nasty insulting shaming demeanor toward anybody who publicly attacks Christianity.  So far, I am the only person on the internet to have exposed the fact that the Context Group has totally disowned Holding, more than once, in no uncertain terms, and they have declared his most comprehensive effort to justify insulting demeanor, to be an "obvious perversion" of Context Group work in general, founder Richard Rohrbaugh's work in particular, and that it perverts the New Testament as well, to such an extreme degree that Rohrbaugh doesn't even find Holding's magnum opus so much as worthy of a response.  Holding was made aware since 2008 of the Context Group's low view of him personally and professionally, yet for whatever reason, he has refused to modify his God-wants-you-to-talk-shit magnum opus or delete its references to Context Group scholarship

Is Holding just extremely forgetful of the obvious, despite multiply repeated notices/warnings these last few years?  Or does Holding have a serious sin of pride that prevents him from having common decency and basic honesty?

What is worse?

The atheist who gets Tacitus wrong, or the Christian apologist who refuses to acknowledge the truth that he has 'obviously perverted' the work of the very scholars he uses to support his most cherished belief?

If Holding is going to dismiss an atheist because of a single blunder in a basic area, wouldn't an atheist have even more rational warrant to dismiss Holding where it is proved Holding has dishonestly continued using scholars that he already knows have asserted accused him of making 'obvious perversion' of their work?

Getting Tacitus wrong is far more likely due to accident or simple ignorance, since his infamous reference to Jesus has produced an avalanche of scholarship advocating both Christian and skeptical views.

Getting basic honesty and common decency wrong for more than 20 years, is far less likely to be a case of innocent mistake/oversight.

So...does Holding agree that, if one can show that he really is the dishonest scumbag most atheists think he is, one will have sufficient rational warrant to dismiss everything else he has to say?

Holding in the video says when he peruses an atheist book, he immediately looks for their treatment of the reference by Tacitus.  Again, Holding appears to be losing his mind...there is no logical or rational connection between getting Tacitus wrong, and being so stupid that one is unworthy of any further attention.

Worse, Holding encourages the Christian watching the video to do likewise:

"I'd like to recommend the Tacitus test to you as a way to figure out whether a book is worthy taking seriously or not.  If a fundy atheist does botched job like this one, then you can pretty much ignore anything else he has to say, and save yourself the time and the pain of reading his work." (video at 2:20 ff)

 I guess there's a new low in the new era of Christian scholarship.  Thanks but no thanks.  I won't ask whether a blunder in a basic area justifies me to give no attention to somebody, I'll instead simply ask what their specific argument against my belief is, and how well they supported it.

Holding, true to form, just cannot provide reasons why atheists are wrong, in this video he has to flash a picture of a roll of toilet paper and characterize the atheist work as not even worthy for wiping one's ass (video at 0:45 ff)

Holding then criticizes a 30-year-minister-turned atheist for invoking R.T. France and other authorities for the proposition that Tacitus scholars largely believe Tacitus' source was mere "popular understanding".  Holding then says this is not how most Tacitean scholars view the matter.  What he doesn't tell the viewer is that R.T. France is a Christian, and professor of NT, whose commentary to this effect is hosted at leaderu web site that also hosts Bill Craig's stuff.

There, France says:

(a) The brief notice in Tacitus Annals xv.44 mentions only his title, Christus, and his execution in Judea by order of Pontius Pilatus. Nor is there any reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information-it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record.

Gee, will Mr. Holding assert that because Christian R.T. France got Tacitus wrong, the Christians he instructed before his death would have been wise to drop his classes?  Why should an atheist's mistake on Tacitus justify thinking they have nothing worthy of note, but Christian scholars who make the same mistake, might still have something worthy of note?  Nah, Mr. Holding just has a very stupid inconsistent criterion for truth, which he employs or doesn't employ as expediency dictates.

The fact that France was a Christian scholar means he was predisposed to accept the Tacitus-reference as gospel.  When a Christian doesn't agree that some Christian argument is forceful, its probably because they found evidence sufficient to overcome their pro-Christian predisposition, especially when the Christian is a scholar who puts he reasons in the arena, and not just an average liberal Christian with private views.


Holding will have an extremely difficult time locating properly qualified Christian scholars who agree with  him that it is a sign of good scholarship to toss another scholar's book out the window, because she fumbled a point that you think is basic.  Then again, having absolutely zero bible scholarship to back his views, has never bothered a man laden with the sin of pride like Holding.  The fact that no scholars support many of his points just assures him that God has chosen him to be the first to see these deep theological mysteries.

By the way, as an atheist bible critic, I overcome the alleged secular references to Jesus, with Paul's infamously unexpected and near total lack of interest in the historical Jesus.  Paul's silence on the historical Jesus is far more grave than the weakenesses of the secular references to Jesus. It doesn't matter what conclusion is warranted from Paul's near total silence;  whether Jesus didn't exist, or existed as a far less dramatic person than the gospels depict, either theory does fatal violence to fundy Christianity.

I also defeat the implications of the secular Jesus references with arguments that there are hopeless contradictions between Acts and the gospels.  It doesn't matter which source contained the fiction, either theory fatally injures the inerrancy doctrine. Check back to see my updates to that effect. 

Holding next says Tacitean scholars do not share France's view, but let's clarify:  France didn't say this reference is a forgery...he said Tacitus wrote it and was likely relying on second-hand or "popular understanding".  With that clarification on record, then either Holding is a liar, or unacceptably ignorant.

17 years ago, Jeffery Jay Lowder documented that while the scholars mostly think the passage authentic, some of them harbor France's view that Tacitus' source was something other than independent fact-checking or the imperial archives:

Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus' sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, "Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112)."[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny's encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus' information "is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians."[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don't know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, "Truthfully, there is no way to tell" where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can't use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

There's impressive support for saying the majority scholarly view generally agrees with France's view that something other than objective fact checking the historical existence of Christ in the Roman archives, was the reason Tacitus asserted the existence of Christ, even if the other scholars don't argue the exact same way France did.

Notice:  France's view is also held by Wells and Sanders.  So when Holding says in his video that France's assessment is not shared by anyone with any level of expertise in Tacitus, what he means is that if a scholar agrees with France's assessment of Tactius, Holding thus thinks said scholar doesn't have any level of expertise in Tacitus.

Holding says Tacitean scholars do not characterize Tacitus as somebody who would be sufficiently blasé in his sourcework so as to assert somebody's existence solely because of popular understanding, but why does Holding think an ancient historian basing his view on popular understanding is blasé?  Does he think all 1st century historians didn't represent something as fact unless they exhausted their own first-hand investigation of the official sources?

How did Matthew know about the allegedly false story spread by the Jews recorded in Matthew 28:15?  Did he conduct interviews with the original Christ-hating Jews who started the rumor, and thus subject himself to certain death for being a follower of the executed insurrectionist?  Or is Matthew, like so many other places in his gospel, depending on popular tradition (Christian or otherwise) as his source?

According to Metzger, some of the early copyists inserted material that could only have been sourced in popular understanding.  See John 5:4.  Other Christian scholars, who espouse inerrancy agree:

The reader should recognize that vv. 3b–4 (present in the KJV) are a later scribal addition to the story, probably inserted into the text by an early copyist who believed in such mythical manifestations and who sought to support the man’s belief pattern by such a statement. In terms of an explanation it is possible that the man’s theory here may have been based on the occurrence of an interesting natural phenomenon in which at high water times the pool apparently was infused by a periodic influx of spring water that stirred the pool with excess water.

Borchert, G. L. (2001, c1996). Vol. 25A: John 1-11 (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 232).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

All scholars agree Luke was not with the original apostles before Jesus died, yet Luke reports the temptations of Jesus which happened before his ministry began.  Luke 4.  The bible never expresses or implies that any disciple was with Jesus, or was even a disciple, at the time of these temptations, so Luke can only have known about these stories, at best, by original disciples telling him what Christ told them.  That's called 3rd-hand hearsay.

Does Holding still think 3rd-hand hearsay is blasé?  Of course not.  If the bible said 2+2=5, the problem will be with the ungodly world for being spiritually dead, since for Holding, the bible having errors is like God being an atheist...there's a fixed natural law logically preventing any errors in the bible.  As as well there should be, because fighting critics of inerrancy does what preaching the prosperity gospel does, it causes idiots to donate their cash, and as we all know, the cash is what its all about.  Holding could very easily pay for his ministry by himself and his own work, but perhaps he thinks the "you should tithe" parts of the bible (1st Tim. 5:18) are more important than the "I didn't accept charity from you" parts. 2nd Thess. 3:8

One thing we can be sure of, Holding will not be quoting any properly credentialed Christian scholars who agree with him that noting one error in a basic area justifies tossing the entire work in the garbage.  Common sense dictate what proper objective peer-review would be, and Holding has done nothing here but hit an all-time low.

Holding is apparently fearful that if his followers read a bible-critic's book all the way through, they will encounter significantly weighty justification to abandon the faith (i.e., stop tithing to him), and having discovered that he fails to defend the faith convincingly, has resorted to the new low of trying to give his followers reasons to turn away from good critical arguments before testing them on the merits.

Once again, how much is implied when an atheist gets Tacitus wrong one time in a single book, and how much is implied when a Christian apologist gets his own favorite Context Group scholars wrong for 20 years running, and continues thereafter despite knowing they have disowned him for more than 5 years?

Only a deluded follower of Holding would trifle that the atheist mistake has greater potential to mislead.


 Somebody pointed out the obvious and Holding tried to parry:

DecKrash1 day ago

Maybe I'm just playing devil's avocate here, Mr. Holding, but why would an atheist treating Tacitus with flippant derision be proof that the rest of what he/she has to say isn't worth reading? That's not to say that what you said isn't true; it's just that maybe they might have done a passable job on scholarship, but dropped the ball on things like their research into Tacitus. Not judging; I'm just curious.

tektontv1 day ago

I'm being a bit satirical; hence the end comment. But in general, I have found that this is indeed a good measure for the lack of scholarship in the books as a whole; it can serve as a convenience for a typical reader that has other things to do. That said, as someone who does this as a job, I also check a few other markers and paragraphs in my real-world treatments. The thing is, I could have picked any one of a number of markers and said the same thing. :P

Then by Holding's logic, dismissing everything else he has to say without testing it on the merits, is justified because he violates even more basic notions like honesty, integrity and consistency, and he violates them specifically in the area of his use of scholarship.  So to be consistent, Holding will have to agree that if one finds him making errors in such basic things, dismissing all else he has to say "can serve as a convenience for a typical reader that has other things to do."

Holding doesn't let on that he does more fact-checking than his video suggests, until he is called on the carpet for how silly it would be to employ his recommendation as prescribed.

I also note that because Holding seems to think he is above the typical reader who has other things to do, he must think that the average person is not intellectually obligated to check out a criticism as thoroughly as he does.  Does he extend that logic to atheists?  If an atheist is not a scholar but a typical reader that has other things to do, can he do what Holding's followers all do, sneer his criticisms at his enemies, than walk away and justifiably avoid discussion?

The bible scholars who condemn Holding for his childish name calling

I've already shown in prior posts that Holding's favorite bible scholars, those of the "Context Group", think Holding gives Christianity a bad name and they say that his use of their scholarship in his most intense effort to show biblical justification for insulting one's critics, was an "obvious perversion" of their work and of the NT itself.

This blog will be dedicated to providing the world with the news that Holding's worshipers don't wish to know, that well-qualified Christian scholars see no justification in the bible, whatsoever for modern-day Christians to verbally besmirch and shame their critics.
==================

As a result of my libel lawsuit against Holding, I forced him to reveal private emails he had sent and received from his friends and lawyers, which showed him libeling me like crazy.  In several, Gary Habermas expresses that he is glad that Holding is allegedly no longer engaging in "strong comebacks."


James White, Ph.d, is a 5-point Calvinist, author of many books,  and has been doing public debates with Christians and others for years.  When he critiques Holding in his article "How not to do exegesis", he disagrees with Holding's choice to start resorting to ad hominem attacks, and calls Holding a "nasty apologist", whom White will be glad to wash his hands of for good:

The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner. 

Holding pushed his use of homoerotic illustrations to such extreme levels in his debate with Christian apologist Steve Hays, that Hays had to complain and rightly observe that Holding has a filthy mind:

 …As a flavor of the level at which Holding’s mind operates, his latest thread is charmingly headed: “Steve Hays needs to stop passing gas at his betters.” This is a specimen of Defendant’s recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.
…Defendant’s personal antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I say simply because I was the one who said it. And by being so utterly reactionary, he backs himself into the most indefensible corners imaginable.
…This is not the first time that Defendant has taken a personal interest in my backside. Defendant would be well advised to resist his unsavory attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.    

Update July 19, 2017:  In April 2015 I emailed Daniel J. Kirk, Ph.d, who was then with Fuller Theology Seminary, asking whether he saw any biblical license for modern day Christians to insult their critics.  He said Christians who do that today are mindlessly imitating cultural norms that no longer apply, and sound like people who cannot be reasoned with:

 On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.comwrote:

Hello,

I am having some issues with a brother who tries to justify his public insulting of atheists by appeal to the social science work on the bible done by the "Context Group".

When this brother preaches to unbelievers, and they challenge something in the bible, he insults and belittles them.

I have tried to fulfill the Matthew 18 obligation to go to him in private, but he responds that in light of the social science work on the New Testament performed by the Context Group, the statements in the NT that seem to prohibit arguing or insulting those who criticize Christianity, must be interpreted in light of the honor/shame culture which produced them, which means the example of Jesus and Paul in insulting their critics publicly, is to be followed by Christians today.  He thus concludes that he has biblical justification to continually return "insult for insult". When I remind him that us modern-day Christians do not live in first-century Mediterranean lands, he just laughs and says we are bidden under 1st Corinthians 11:1 to imitate the ways of Paul and Christ.

I would like to know:

1 - Are you familiar with the work of the context group, and if so, how familiar are you with it?

2 - Do you find anything about the Context Group's scholarship on biblical honor/shame issues, which would support the argument that modern day Christians are biblically justified to insult those who criticize Christianity?   I have tried to email various members of the Context Group with this question, but the email addresses available on the web are either dead, or they are simply not responding.

3 - Can you think of any scholar of the NT who would support making the public insulting of skeptics, an exception to the "do not be quarrelsome" in 2nd Timothy 2:24?

4 - Do you feel there are any verses in the NT that prohibit modern-day Christians from publicly insulting those who publicly criticize Christianity?  I can buy that the NT allows a bit of witticism, but the brother whom I speak of literally "calls names" and uses euphemisms referring to the buttocks and spanking, among other such imagery, to describe what it was like for him to win an argument with an unbeliever (!?). I would have thought his whole demeanor was a simply case of the "filthy talk" that Paul prohibits, but maybe I just don't know enough about honor/shame mentality in ANE cultures to justify criticizing this brother?

Thank you for your time,

Barry Jones barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

--- On Mon, 5/4/15, Daniel Kirk <jrkirk@fuller.eduwrote:
From: Daniel Kirk <jrkirk@fuller.edu
Subject: Re: your opinion of challenge/riposte
To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, May 4, 2015, 1:32 PM
Barry, It sounds like you are up against someone who is not going to be reasoned with. There are verses that talk about acting in such a way that people see our goodness and honor God. Not sure those will help, though. The idea that the "context group" gives this kind of license is somewhat absurd. As you point out, the point of studying context is to learn about context--what worked and was assumed in theirs does not work and is not assumed in ours. We have to be faithful to the place we're called, not mindlessly imitating cultural norms that no longer apply. Peace,jrdk
---- J. R. Daniel Kirk
Associate Professor of New Testament
Fuller Theological Seminary
Menlo Park, CA

When Holding found out about this, he said my communication with Dr. Kirk was a good reason to report me for stalking, and since he was addressing me, his mortal enemy, he cannot seriously have expected me to take this as hyperbole or sarcasm, especially not since later he accused me of criminal stalking:

On Thu, 5/7/15, jphold@att.net <jphold@att.net> wrote:

Subject: Re: Fuller Theological Seminary thinks you are 'absurd'

To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

Date: Thursday, May 7, 2015, 4:49 AM

Sounds like good reason for me to report you for stalking!

Again, in April of 2015, I emailed similar questions to D.A. Carson.  He replied that trying to dissuade today's Christian who goes around insulting others is a waste of time since the view of such a person will not be easily "corrected", that some Context Group work is exaggerated, they do their work as functioning atheists despite some of them being Christians, and that the NT does not support modern Christians going around ceaselessly excoriating their critics:

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.comwrote: Hello,

I am having some issues with a brother who tries to justify his public insulting of atheists by appeal to the social science work on the bible done by the "Context Group".

When this brother preaches to unbelievers, and they challenge something in the bible, he insults and belittles them.

I have tried to fulfill the Matthew 18 obligation to go to him in private, but he responds that in light of the social science work on the New Testament performed by the Context Group, the statements in the NT that seem to prohibit arguing or insulting those who criticize Christianity, must be interpreted in light of the honor/shame culture which produced them, which means the example of Jesus and Paul in insulting their critics publicly, is to be followed by Christians today.  He thus concludes that he has biblical justification to continually return "insult for insult". When I remind him that us modern-day Christians do not live in first-century Mediterranean lands, he just laughs and says we are bidden under 1st Corinthians 11:1 to imitate the ways of Paul and Christ.

I would like to know:

1 - Are you familiar with the work of the context group, and if so, how familiar are you with it?  From what I can gather through google books, they say much about honor/shame mentality in the biblical times, but they never draw the conclusion that modern-day Christians should publicly insult those who publicly criticize Christianity!  Did I miss something?

2 - Do you find anything about the Context Group's scholarship on biblical honor/shame issues, which would support the argument that modern day Christians are biblically justified to insult those who criticize Christianity?  I have tried to email various members of the Context Group with this question, but the email addresses available on the web are either dead, or they are simply not responding.

3 - Can you think of any scholar of the NT who would support making the public insulting of skeptics, an exception to the "do not be quarrelsome" in 2nd Timothy 2:24?

4 - Do you feel there are any verses in the NT that prohibit modern-day Christians from publicly insulting those who publicly criticize Christianity?  I can buy that the NT allows a bit of witticism, but the brother whom I speak of literally "calls names" and uses euphemisms referring to the buttocks and spanking, among other such imagery, to describe what it was like for him to win an argument with an unbeliever (!?). I would have thought his whole demeanor was a simply case of the "filthy talk" that Paul prohibits, but maybe I just don't know enough about honor/shame mentality in ANE cultures to justify criticizing this brother?>

Thank you for your time,

Barry Jonesbarryjoneswhat@yahoo.com 

--- On Tue, 5/5/15, Carson <carson.aa@gmail.comwrote:  

From: Carson <carson.aa@gmail.com

Subject: Re: your opinion of challenge/riposte

To: "Barry Jones" <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 7:22 AM

Dear Mr. Jones,  

The Context Group is a collection of biblical scholars who study (mostly) the New Testament using social-scientific methods, such as sociology, anthropology, and the like. Whatever their personal beliefs, they do their work as functioning atheists (even though some of them are not personally atheists). One of the things they emphasize, partly rightly and partly in an exaggerated way, is the role of shame in the first century as opposed to guilt. Those of us who work in East Asian countries sometimes today see something of the same shame-culture.  

I would argue that in the Bible, sin generates both guilt and shame. The West has in recent centuries emphasized the former; East Asian countries emphasize the latter. Both categories are biblical, and both are rightly addressed in the gospel.  

If someone were really concerned to operate within a shame culture, it seems to me they would be wise not to bring shame on those they are addressing, but to bring truth with Christian integrity and love. To bring someone shame in a shame culture is among the unkindest things you can do.  

Biblically, there are clearly some places where both Jesus and Paul excoriate opponents with a certain amount of animus designed to elicit both shame and guilt. I think it is possible to learn when and why they do so. In other instances, however, many passages demonstrate that their more common demeanor was rather different. For example, Jesus is the one who will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoking wick.  

Frankly, I would not waste much time trying to convince your friend. It sounds as if he has adopted a pretty rigid stance that will not easily be corrected. Instead of spending your energy trying to correct him, spend your energy trying to bear faithful and fruitful and loving witness to the wonder of the gospel to those who do not know Christ.

With all good wishes, Yours faithfully,

D. A. Carson

Research Professor of New Testament

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

2065 Half Day Road, Deerfield, IL 60015  

DAC:da

Again, in April 2015, I emailed to bible scholar Craig Blomberg the following questions about whether the bible supports modern-day Christians who insult and belittle their critics:

    From: Barry Jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:57 PM

    To: Blomberg, Craig

    Subject: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

    What is your opinion of modern day Christians who persistently insult critics of Christianity?

    

    I noticed that you yourself never attempt to characterize your winning some debate about the bible, by using euphemisms that describe the sexual parts of the human body, and you never use insulting rhetoric, when you communicate with unbelievers or heretics who criticize the faith.  Are these things missing from your demeanor solely by reason of personal preference/choice, or are they missing because you believe that the bible without exception forbids Christians acting like that?

    

    How would you respond to the argument that "because Jesus and Paul insulted critics of Christianity, this is license for modern Christians to do the same?"

    

    It is my opinion that when 2nd Timothy 2:24-26 says "the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all...", the "all" includes unbelievers who criticize and attack Christian faith.  Do you agree or disagree, and please provide your reasons.  Some Christians have given me what appears to be very tortured exegesis in the effort to argue that this passage is consistent with their daily ceaseless persistent foul-mouthed insults against skeptics and atheists.  They say I only disagree with them because I don't know enough about honor/shame cultures or the ANE to speak on the subject.  I'm certainly no scholar, but I don't see anything in the scholarly literature about the ANE or honor/shame cultures, that would justify saying this passage is consistent with modern day Christians who routinely insult and belittle atheists and skeptics.

    

    Are you familiar with the work of the "Context Group" (i.e., Malina, Rohrobough, etc)?  If so, can you think of any contribution to biblical studies they ever made, which could reasonably be taken to support the idea that the New Testament approves of Christians who daily and routinely insult their critics?  I certainly appreciate their work, and most of it is not even hinted at in standard protestant commentaries, but I also cannot, for the life of me, find anything in their works that would suggest biblical justification for modern-day Christians routinely insulting unbelievers who attack Christian faith.

         Thank you,

         Barry Jones.

 Dr. Craig replied that those who act like this today, do a fair amount of damage to the Christian cause, and that he is not aware of anything in the Context Group scholarship of Malina or Rohrbaugh which would provide justification for modern Christians to insult and belittle those who publicly criticize Christianity:

From: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:14 PM

Subject: RE: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

A thorough study of the NT discloses that Jesus and Paul consistently reserve their harshest criticisms for the religious insiders to their movements (Pharisees, Judaizers) who are overly conservative and should know better but are unexpectedly solicitous to outsiders in hopes of wooing them into the kingdom.  Unfortunately some modern-day Christians precisely invert those priorities and usually do a fair amount of damage to the cause in the process.  No, I know nothing about Malina and Rohrbaugh’s work that would justify what you describe.

I responded with a few follow-up remarks and further questions:

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

To: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:02 AM

Subject: Re: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

Mr. Blomberg,

Thank you for your response.

Just a few quick followup questions:  How familiar are you with the work of Malina and Rohrbough on the subject of honor/shame cultures?

Is it your opinion that there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament justifying those modern-day Christians who routinely insult and belittle the atheists who criticize Christianity?

How exactly would you respond to the argument that, because Jesus and Paul insulted those who criticized Christianity, this constitutes license for modern-day Christians debating atheists, to imitate this behavior today?

Can you think of any Christian or non-Christian bible scholars who have ever opined, either publicly or privately, that the New Testament justifies modern-day Christians in insulting those who oppose Christianity?

What is your opinion of an interpretation of a bible verse that has indirect scholarly support, but no direct scholarly support from any bible scholar?  Is it pretty safe to conclude that such interpretations are so unlikely to be correct, that we can safely dismiss them without argument?  It is my opinion that because there is so much scholarship out there, the idea that one person should come up with an interpretation of a passage that seems to have been missed by every single bible scholar on earth for the last 200 years, is so far fetched that they are on the order of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the "cult" stuff claiming to see things in the bible that everybody else has somehow missed, and we do far better for believers and unbelievers to simply dismiss immediately such interpretations.

I once had a Christian attempt to get away from the "do not be quarrelsome" in 2nd Timothy 2:24-26, with the following argument:  that passage is not addressing Christian conduct taking place in public forums, or places where the speculators are trying to spread their ideas, it is instead addressing one-on-one relationships.  Do you agree with that interpretation?  does the "all" in the phrase "but be kind to all" include unbelievers who criticize Christianity?  If so, can you think of any biblical exceptions to the rule requiring Christians to be kind to unbelievers who criticize Christianity?

As a foremost authority on the gospels, can you think of any gospel passages that, in your opinion, absolutely prohibit today's Christians from insulting those who oppose Christianity?

What is your opinion of the argument that, even if we cannot initiate the name-calling, we are allowed to return insult for insult when and if the atheist critic we deal is the one who starts the name-calling?

Do you believe that modern-day Christians who routinely resort to harsh insulting language against critics of Christianity, are clearly sinning with this kind of talk, or would you rather say that the circumstances the Christian is in when using  insulting rhetoric, decide whether the name-calling constitutes sin?

 Blomberg's final reply indicated that he felt negativity was to be reserved solely for ultra conservative Christians who need to be rebuked, and that any bible interpretations that lack support from any bona fide scholars are likely false:

From: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:18 PM

Subject: RE: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

I answered several of these  questions explicity or implicitly in my previous response.  I don’t care to expand on it much  One can never make absolute statements about Scripture never justifying insulting behavior.  The Twelve are to shake the dust off their feet for those who reject them.  But, in general, we do much better to be positive, except to the ultraconservative Christian who needs to be rebuked. Interpretations that no bona fide scholars anywhere support are likely to be suspect because detailed scholarly studies will have canvased them already.

From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

To: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 1:00 PM

Subject: Re: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

thank you for your time.

 Mr. Holding's magnum opus, that Christians of today have biblical authority to go around ceaselessly insulting their critics with shameful belittling vituperation, is not agreed to by ANY "bone fide" legitimately credentialed Christian scholar.  So under Blomberg's own criteria, we have full rational warrant to be suspicious, at the least, that Holding's view of the matter is false, and yet, true to form, Holding prances around like an attention-deficit peacock, screaming at the world how obviously correct he is and how "dumbass" and "moronic" anybody who disagrees with him is.

See my open letter to Blomberg, asking how he can reconcile his reasonable normative view with his continuing to show sympathy to Holding after my lawsuit exposed Holding's egregious unChristian libels and defamation of my character (such as accusing me of crimes I did not commit, to the point of him filing a frivolous police report against me, which the investigator refused to take seriously.)

James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel) prioritizes heretical scholarship above Christian scholarship

In a prior post, I quoted an email exchange I had with Holding's alleged scholar-hero Richard Rohrbaugh, indicating that Rohrbaugh thinks Holding's article attempting to justify modern-day Christians to insult their critics, as being an "obvious perversion" of Rohrbaugh's work, Context Group work and a perversion of the New Testament itself.

Notice that Rohrbaugh explicitly denied that the bible has God's words:

From: Richard Rohrbaugh <---

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com

Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 6:39 PM

Subject: Re: Nahum out of the canon?

      Barry,

 A lot of questions...  Some quick answers:

         If a biblical author approves of insulting language and attitude does that mean it is a good thing?  No.  It means that author was mean and insulting.  Period.  Are such comments "from God"?  No.  The Bible is a human product.  It is not God's words, it is the words of its many authors.  They were like us: some were wise and thoughtful, some were vindictive, blind and short sighted.  The ancient Hebrews left us all sorts of stuff which THEY found meaningful.  Some of it has proven so to people everywhere for over 2000 years.  Other stuff they left us is less than worthwhile.  There are lots of bad characters in biblical stories.  Why should we imitate them?

While Holding can scream all he wishes that one can be a good bible scholar without believing the bible is God's inspired word, many conservative Christians who share Holding's core beliefs about the physical resurrection of Jesus, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the historicity of the Virgin Birth, and the bible being "inerrant", would seriously question the morality of his heavy reliance on scholarship that denies the bible to be God's word.  They would complain that one essential New Testament criteria for good scholarship is conformity to Paul's beliefs that the scriptures are the inspired word of God:

 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:14-17 NAU)

 Jesus certainly thought the scriptures were God's word:

 14 And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district.
 15 And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all.
 16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.
 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
 18 "THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
 19 TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD."
 20 And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
 (Lk. 4:14-21 NAU)

  38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" (Jn. 7:38 NAU)

 35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), (Jn. 10:35 NAU)

I'd like to ask Holding:

1 - You have been belittling skeptics for years due to their attempts to justify their belief that the bible isn't the inspired word of God.  Do you believe there are any good justifications for denying that the bible is the word of God, yes or no?  If yes, what are they, and how does that admission impact your public image as a defender of the bible as the word of God?  If no, then why doesn't Rohrbaugh's agreement with atheist skeptics that the bible isn't god's word, make him equally worthy of the scorn you heap on everybody else who adopts the same view?  Mr. Objectivity never played favorites, did he?

2 - How do you justify your choice to use scholarship of Christians who deny the bible has God's words, in light of apostle Paul's belief that his words in his NT writings came from God?

 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
 39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
 40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. (1 Cor. 14:37-40 NAU)

3 - Didn't Paul say those who do not agree with the words of Jesus, are sick in the head and create unnecessary havoc?

 3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,
 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Tim. 6:3-5 NAU)

4 - Some of your published books have been endorsed by lights such as Gary Habermas, Michael Licona and Craig Blomberg.  Do you suppose they would have aligned themselves with you publicly had they know the true extent to which you depend on the kind of Christian scholarship that denies the divine authenticity of the bible?  What are the odds that Blomberg would ever write a Forward to a book by Bishop Spong?